Gujarat HC abates fragmentation-law proceedings after amendment regularises land transfers made up to 31 March 2026

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the order dated 13 July 2016 passed by the Special Secretary, Revenue Department (“SSRD”) in Revision Application No. 14 of 2006 concerning alleged contravention of the Gujarat Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (“Fragmentation Act”).

The petitioner relied on a sale deed executed on 24 June 1999, contending that the transaction fell within the retrospective period covered by the State Government’s amendment to Section 9 of the Fragmentation Act.

During the hearing, the State produced the Notification dated 14 July 2026 incorporating Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026, under which transfers or partitions made between 29 January 1948 and 31 March 2026 were deemed regularised and pending proceedings in respect thereof were required to abate.

The State sought remand to the competent authority to determine whether the transaction fell within the amended provision, whereas the petitioner sought direct abatement of the proceedings.

Whether the petitioner’s sale transaction dated 24 June 1999, allegedly contrary to the Fragmentation Act, was covered by the retrospective regularisation introduced by Section 9(4) of the Act.

Whether the pending proceedings and the impugned SSRD orders were required to be declared abated directly by the High Court, or whether the matter should be remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration.

The Court applied Article 227 of the Constitution, governing the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate authorities.

It relied on Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act, inserted by Gujarat Ordinance No. 2 of 2026 and notified on 14 July 2026, which provides that transfers or partitions contrary to the Act made on or after 29 January 1948 but on or before 31 March 2026 shall be deemed regularised without penalty or premium and that all pending proceedings before any officer or authority concerning such transactions shall abate.

The Court also referred to the newly inserted Section 5(4), enabling the State Government to declare standard areas for classes of land in specified local areas.

On the question of remand, the Court relied on Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier, 2025 INSC 771, for the principle that remand is not routine and should not be ordered where it would serve no useful purpose or unnecessarily prolong litigation.

The Court found that the petitioner’s transaction took place on 24 June 1999, within the period expressly covered by Section 9(4).

Since the amended provision deemed such transactions regularised and mandated abatement of all pending proceedings, the statutory consequence followed directly from the date of the transaction.

The Court further noted that the transaction was bona fide, that the original landowners had received the sale consideration, and that there was no subsisting dispute requiring their participation in the revenue proceedings.

Applying the principle against purposeless remand, the Court held that sending the matter back would create multiplicity of proceedings and defeat the object of the amendment, particularly because the provision itself declared that pending proceedings “shall abate”.

It held that the petitioner’s 24 June 1999 transaction was covered by Section 9(4) of the Fragmentation Act and that the pending proceedings stood abated by operation of law.

The impugned SSRD orders were quashed and set aside, and no remand to the authority was directed.